Americans United - Keith Ellisonhttps://www.au.org/tags/keith-ellison
enReligious Freedom For Everyone: We’re FOR It https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-freedom-for-everyone-we-re-for-it
<a href="/about/people/maggie-garrett">Maggie Garrett</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Placing a religious litmus test on those who may enter the United States is troubling and objectionable for many reasons.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>This afternoon U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), along with more than 50 other members of the House of Representatives, introduced the Freedom of Religion Act (FOR).</p><p>This bill would push back against one of the most troubling proposals we’ve heard during this already long presidential campaign: banning Muslims from entering the United States. The proposed legislation, by contrast, would ensure that immigrants, refugees and international travelers will not be barred from entering the United States solely because of their religion.</p><p>Americans United supports this bill because denying someone entry into the United States on the grounds that they are of the “wrong” religion, defies our county’s long-held commitment to religious freedom. And we applaud the bill sponsors for pushing back against policy proposals that discriminate on the basis of religion.</p><p>The bill’s co-sponsors include: U.S. Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-Washington, D.C.). In addition, 31 diverse religious and public policy organizations endorsed the bill <a href="https://au.org/files/pdf_documents/IA_Letter_2016_05_09_BeyerBillFinal.pdf">in a letter</a> earlier this week.</p><p>In December, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/">announced</a> that, if elected, he would bar Muslims from entering the country. In a press release issued by his campaign, Trump explained he “is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”</p><p>Perhaps we shouldn’t have been shocked by this proposal, as Trump had already proclaimed he would <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008">close down mosques</a> and would consider creating a <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/">database</a> to register all Muslims. And yet, the audacity of this notion was still hard to believe.</p><p><img alt="" src="/files/pictures/Refugees-700px%20%28002%29.jpg" style="width: 700px; height: 467px;" /></p><p><em>Syrian refugees. (Photo by Getty images)</em></p><p>Over time, when pressed for details about the ban, Trump has offered some exceptions to his blanket rule: He would allow <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262348-trump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us">citizens</a> to reenter the country (“If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back”); members of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/12/07/e56266f6-9d2b-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html">military</a> to return after deployment; and, of course, he would allow his <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-rich-muslim-friends">rich Muslim friends</a> to enter the country (“They’ll come in. You’ll have exceptions”). And just yesterday, he was kind enough to say that he would allow Sadiq Khan, the newly elected mayor of London, to enter the country.</p><p>Yet, these minor concessions would not fix this really bad idea.</p><p>Placing a religious litmus test on those who may enter the United States is troubling and objectionable for many reasons.</p><p>First, a government policy that openly discriminates against one religion would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But even if it didn’t, it would betray our country’s legacy of religious liberty. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists, among others, have all come to America because of our country’s promise of religious freedom. </p><p>Indeed, the FOR Act reflects not only our country’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom but also its long and proud history of providing safe harbor for members of communities fleeing persecution and seeking a better life. </p><p>Second, the rhetoric surrounding Trump’s idea has stoked anti-Muslim sentiment across this country. In fact, since he announced it in December, anti-Muslim hate crimes have <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/09/donald_trump_and_the_rise_of_anti_muslim_hate_crimes.html">spiked</a> in our nation. The FOR Act will help send the message that such treatment of Muslims and their communities is unwarranted and unacceptable. It is important to speak up against discriminatory rhetoric and ideas.</p><p>Finally, singling out Muslims for disfavored treatment would harm our global relationships, our economy and our national security. Indeed, Christian Caryl of <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/08/banning-muslims-from-the-united-states-is-the-worlds-dumbest-idea/"><em>Foreign Policy</em></a> called the scheme the “World’s Dumbest Idea,” because it is “politically, morally, and strategically wrong” and “also doesn’t make any sense.”</p><p>In fact, such a proposal would deny entry to world leaders, tourists, relatives of Americans, investors and scientific, business and political leaders attending meetings here.</p><p>That is why today we are at the U.S. Capitol, joining with the bill’s lead co-sponsors and the more than 100 allied organizations that support the FOR Act.</p><p>As Thomas Jefferson explained, religious-freedom protections were intended to apply equally to the "Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/outside-workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice-including-military-prisons">Institutional Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice (Including Military, Prisons &amp; Healthcare)</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/don-beyer">Don Beyer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/for-act">FOR Act</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/muslims">Muslims</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/christian-caryl">Christian Caryl</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mike-honda">Mike Honda</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jan-schakowsky">Jan Schakowsky</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/andre-carson">Andre Carson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/joe-crowley">Joe Crowley</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/keith-ellison">Keith Ellison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/betty-mccollum">Betty McCollum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/eleanor-holmes-norton">Eleanor Holmes Norton</a></span></div></div>Wed, 11 May 2016 17:50:29 +0000Rob Boston11960 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-freedom-for-everyone-we-re-for-it#commentsCourtroom Drama: N.Y. Judge Swears Oath On Quran, Sparks Immediate Backlashhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/courtroom-drama-ny-judge-swears-oath-on-quran-sparks-immediate-backlash
<a href="/about/people/ms-sarah-e-jones">Sarah E. Jones</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who is Muslim, swore on a copy of the Quran to take a seat on Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District Court. The New York Daily News reports that the backlash is so fierce that Diallo’s supporters now fear for her safety. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>New York City’s newest judge has caused a bit of a stir, and it’s not for her approach to jurisprudence. Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who is Muslim, swore on a copy of the Quran to take a seat on Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District Court. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/carolyn-walker-diallo-muslim-judge-sworn-koran-article-1.2467218">The New York <em>Daily News </em>reports</a> that the backlash is so fierce that Diallo’s supporters now fear for her safety.</p><p>Raw Story, a news aggregator, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/bigots-go-bonkers-after-muslim-judge-swears-oath-on-koran-instead-of-bible-she-should-be-arrested/">collected a few</a> of the most virulent comments on a Facebook video of her ceremony.</p><p>“How is using anything other than the holy bible to be sworn in acceptable?” asked Randy Helms; another commenter called for her arrest. A third, Linda Brice Burleson, said it was “foolish” for “Muslims to be in positions of authority.”</p><p>A final comment by Robert P. Schwartz really captures the outrage: “What happened to the AMERICAN TRADITION OF A BIBLE ??????????????????????????”</p><p>Well, Robert, the truth is there’s never really been an “American tradition of a Bible.” No law requires public officials to swear their oaths on the Christian scriptures. In fact, officials aren’t even required to swear anything at all: They have the option to affirm, rather than swear, an oath. There is no legal difference between the two. If an official does choose to swear an oath, they’re free to do so on their own holy books or the Constitution.</p><p>This is not a recent development. In 2006, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) became the first Muslim member of Congress and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500512.html">affirmed his oath of office on a copy of the Quran</a>; the copy he used had originally belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Seven years later, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/tulsi-gabbard-hindu-bhagavad-gita-swearing-in_n_2410078.html">became the first Hindu in Congress</a> and used a copy of the Bhagavad Gita to affirm her oath.</p><p>The world did not end, the country did not fall. We are not subjected to Shariah law and our children do not recite the Gita Dhyanam in school.</p><p>Other officeholders have been sworn in on copies of the U.S. Constitution. Last week, the newly re-elected mayor of Franklin, N.C., joined their ranks. <a href="http://www.wlos.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Mayor-Swears-In-But-Not-On-the-Bible-241429.shtml#.VnF4h0orLct">Bob Scott told ABC 13</a>, a local television affiliate, that his personal beliefs weren’t relevant to his decision.</p><p>“We do not represent any religion. What we represent are the laws of the land,” Scott said. “As far as I'm concerned, there is no place in government for religion. I’m a secularist in that respect. I just don’t think there’s a place for any kind of religious doctrine in government, because we represent everybody.”</p><p>U.S. Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.) also swore on the Constitution when taking office in 2013 (Sinema is religiously unaffiliated) and so did CIA Director John Brennan the same year. They had presidential predecessors: <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/what-no-bible">MSNBC reported at the time</a> that John Quincy Adams swore his oath on a constitutional law journal, and Franklin Pierce chose to affirm an oath, rather than swear, “due to a loss of faith after his son’s death.” (To this day, Pierce remains the only president to do it that way.) </p><p>We have Christians, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172613472/who-gets-religious-exemptions-and-why">principally Quakers</a>, to thank for our oath-taking flexibility. Quakers, who were instrumental to the founding of this country, object to swearing oaths based on their religious principles.</p><p>So Diallo has excellent company. Her oath is simply a reminder that the U.S. has always been a pluralistic country. And since that pluralism is only set to increase, the Roberts and Randys of the world should prepare themselves for oaths on Qurans and Bhagavad Gitas and copies of the Constitution. That’s the right of conscience in action. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/islam">Islam</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/anti-muslim-bigotry">anti-Muslim bigotry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/keith-ellison">Keith Ellison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/krysten-sinema">Krysten Sinema</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tulsi-gabbard">Tulsi Gabbard</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/quakers">quakers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-freedom">religious freedom</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/courtroom-oaths">courtroom oaths</a></span></div></div>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:58:15 +0000Ms. Sarah E. Jones11605 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/courtroom-drama-ny-judge-swears-oath-on-quran-sparks-immediate-backlash#commentsOath Oppression: It Makes No Sense To Coerce People To Swear To A God They Don’t Believe Inhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oppression-it-makes-no-sense-to-coerce-people-to-swear-to-a-god-they
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mandatory religious oaths are a violation of the fundamental right of conscience. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Way back in the 1630s, the leaders of Puritan Massachusetts got the bright idea that every adult in the colony should be required to swear a loyalty oath to the governor that ended with the phrase “So help me God.”</p><p>The iconoclastic Puritan preacher Roger Williams was not impressed.</p><p>“A magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man,” he observed. Doing so, Williams asserted, would cause the oath taker “to take the name of God in vain.”</p><p>That was a long time ago. I had kind of hoped we had gotten this oath business straightened out by now. And we have – sort of.</p><p>Most courtrooms these days will allow an alternative oath for non-believers who don’t want to swear on the Bible or say “So help me God.” Elected or appointed officials being sworn into office can take the oath on the Bible, some other religious book, <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/no-bible-for-brennan-cia-director-takes-oath-of-office-on-constitution">the Constitution</a>, a law book or no document at all. New citizens being naturalized can choose between a <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-must-end-religious-discrimination-says">religious or secular oath</a>.</p><p>Although there are occasional problems with this, word is getting out that mandatory religious oaths are a violation of the fundamental right of conscience. As our friend Williams pointed out nearly 400 years ago, why would we want to force someone to swear an oath they don’t even believe in? Doesn’t that kind of negate the oath?</p><p>Given all of this, I was kind of surprised recently to read about the case of Jonathan Bise, an officer candidate at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama who was told <a href="http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/08/maxwell_air_force_base_allows.html">he had to say an oath</a> ending in “So help me God” to graduate.</p><p>Bise knew this was not true. Backed by the American Humanist Association and the Military Alliance of Atheists and Freethinkers, he threatened to sue.</p><p>Base officials quickly reversed course. The <em>Birmingham News</em> reported that Major Stewart L. Rountree said he had been given bad information about the oath. To his credit, Rountree accepted the blame for the screw-up and vowed to make things right.</p><p>“This mistake is my fault and I take full accountability for the bad information,” Rountree wrote in an email to the groups. “Our previous legal advisors were mistaken in advising us that it was required because the (Air Force form) has static text stating ‘so help me God.’”</p><p>He went on to say, “[I]t is apparently common practice across the Air Force to allow a secular version. Again, I apologize and assure you that there was no agenda here. I just had bad information that is now remedied.”</p><p>That’s great. I wish every church-state issue could be resolved so smoothly and quickly.</p><p>Of course, Religious Right groups will probably start carping about this very soon. They’ve been on a tear lately about alleged <a href="http://www.militaryfreedom.org/">“hostility toward religion” in the military</a>. It’s all nonsense, of course – another manufactured controversy designed to stir up the theocratic legions and fill the coffers of groups like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.</p><p>The Religious Right will likely cry and moan about secular oaths and the supposed assault on religious values in the armed forces that a secular option represents. They’ve carped about this before. In 2006, after Keith Ellison, a Muslim, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota, several far-right groups went ballistic over his plan to <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/january-2013-church-state/featured/so-help-me-gods">take the oath of office on a Quran</a>.</p><p>The American Family Association went so far as to advocate for federal legislation requiring members of Congress to swear on Bibles. Leaders of the AFA were too dim to grasp that this was an odd stance for conservative Christians to take, given the New Testament’s condemnation of oath-taking. (See the Epistle of James, 5:12.)</p><p>More to the point, fundamentalists remain flummoxed by the simple question posed by Williams so long ago: Why would we want to compel someone to swear an oath when that person does not believe what the oath says? What do we possibly stand to gain?</p><p>If anyone in the Religious Right has a compelling answer for the good Rev. Williams, I’d sure like to hear it.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice in the Workplace</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/maxwell-air-force-base">Maxwell Air Force Base</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-humanist-association">American Humanist Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/military-alliance-of-atheists-and-freethinkers">Military Alliance of Atheists and Freethinkers</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/stewart-l-rountree">Stewart L. Rountree</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jonathan-bise">Jonathan Bise</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/oaths">oaths</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/american-family-association">American Family Association</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/keith-ellison">Keith Ellison</a></span></div></div>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:31:16 +0000Rob Boston8805 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/oath-oppression-it-makes-no-sense-to-coerce-people-to-swear-to-a-god-they#commentsRepresentatives And Religion: Slowly But Surely, Congress Is Becoming More Diversehttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/representatives-and-religion-slowly-but-surely-congress-is-becoming-more
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A new report says that Congress is slowly becoming more religiously diverse.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>It wasn’t that long ago that the religious make-up of the U.S. Congress consisted of just three groups: Protestants, Catholics and a small number of Jews.</p><p>Every now and then, a member would list his or her religion as “other,” or would decline to answer the question. Generally speaking, though, Congress was a bastion of the nation’s majority faiths.</p><p>That still tends to be the case, but as America’s religious composition changes, Congress is slowly becoming more diverse as well. The House of Representatives now has two Muslim members. There are also two Buddhists in the House and one in the Senate. In addition, the first Hindu has been elected to Congress -- Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii.</p><p>The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has some interesting data about the religious composition of the incoming 113th Congress in a <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Faith-on-the-Hill--The-Religious-Composition-of-the-113th-Congress.aspx">new report</a>. Pew notes that Protestants continue to dominate that body; there will be 299 Protestants in the 113th Congress. The number of Catholics has increased, and members of that faith will account for 161 members of the next Congress.</p><p>The number of Jews is down. There will be 32 Jews in the new Congress. Mormons are holding their own at 15 seats.</p><p>As I looked over the totals, one thing struck me: More and more Americans are identifying their religion as “none,” but this trend has yet to be reflected in Congress. Ten members of the incoming Congress listed their religion as “don’t know” or refused the question, but only one -- Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, claims the label of “none.” (Congress’ lone atheist, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark of California, lost his bid for reelection on Election Day.)</p><p>Pew took pains to point this out. In the report, Pew researchers wrote, “Perhaps the greatest disparity, however, is between the percentage of U.S. adults and the percentage of members of Congress who do not identify with any particular religion.”</p><p>The report reminds us that the United States remains unique among Western nations when it comes to the intersection of faith and politics. Religion continues to affect the political system in ways that you don’t see in other countries. For example, the prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, has been<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290872/Julia-Gillard-I-dont-believe-God-says-Australias-female-PM.html"> public about her atheism</a>, and political leaders in much of Europe rarely invoke religion in their public pronouncements.</p><p>But the United States isn’t like those other countries. Religion continues to influence campaigns here, and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/americans-least-likely-to-vote-for-atheist-muslim-presidential-candidates-poll-finds/">most polls</a> show that many voters flatly say they would not support an atheistic candidate, even if they liked his or her views.</p><p>With that type of bigotry afoot, it’s no wonder so many U.S. politicians rush to embrace some type of religious label.</p><p>One more thought on this: Gabbard has already announced her intention to take the oath of office on a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. I’m sure some Religious Right groups will carp about this. You might recall that several of them threw a fit when U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, took his oath on a Quran. In 2007, there was an <a href="http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/prayer-war-on-the-hill-hindu-invocation-in-senate-reveals-religious-right">ugly incident </a>in the U.S. Senate when a Hindu clergyman was given the opportunity to deliver a guest invocation, and protesters disrupted it.</p><p>This type of intolerance is a dying gasp from the “Christian nation” crowd, and Gabbard should feel free to ignore them. Common decency is on her side, and so is the law. Nothing in the Constitution or the laws of this country mandates that a holder of public office to take the oath of office on a Bible – or any other book, for that matter. The use of Bibles is a tradition, but it’s in no way required. </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/prayer-at-government-events-and-legislative-meetings">Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-refusals-and-rfra">Religious Refusals and RFRA</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-issues-regarding-churches-and-politics">Other Issues regarding Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pew-forum">Pew Forum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tulsi-gabbard">Tulsi Gabbard</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/keith-ellison">Keith Ellison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kyrsten-sinema">Kyrsten Sinema</a></span></div></div>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:33:44 +0000Rob Boston7733 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/representatives-and-religion-slowly-but-surely-congress-is-becoming-more#comments